After 20 years of use by the dental profession, chlorhexidine is recognized as the gold standard against which other antiplaque and gingivitis agents are measured. Chlorhexidine's antiplaque effect is a result of the dicationic nature of the chlorhexidine molecule, which affords the agent the property of persistence of antimicrobial effect at the tooth surface, through both bactericidal and bacteriostatic effects. Although other antiplaque agents may show either purely immediate effect, or limited persistence, the degree of chlorhexidine's persistence of effect at the tooth surface is the basis of its clinical efficacy. Similarly, the cationic nature of the chlorhexidine molecule is the basis of the most common side effect associated with the use of the agent--extrinsic tooth staining. Such tooth staining seems to be the result of a local precipitation reaction between tooth-bound chlorhexidine and chromogens found within foodstuffs and beverages. The cationic nature of the chlorhexidine molecule also means that the activity of the agent is rapidly reduced in the presence of anionic agents, specifically those found within certain types of toothpaste; thus care is required when using normal toothbrushing alongside chlorhexidine. By understanding how the chemical properties of the chlorhexidine molecule can explain the plethora of clinical efficacy and safety data, the use of chlorhexidine can be optimally aimed towards the patient groups who would most benefit from the superior therapeutic effect of the agent. Specifically, chlorhexidine would seem to be of most value to patients in whom the ability to perform adequate oral hygiene procedures has been compromised. In these individuals the delivery of the correct dose of chlorhexidine to the tooth surface can be optimized through the judicial use of the several different chlorhexidine formulations now available. Thus, by understanding the properties and limitations of the chlorhexidine molecule, the dental profession can ensure that the efficacy of the agent is maximized, and the side effects associated with the agent are minimized, allowing chlorhexidine to rightly remain the gold standard against which other antiplaque agents are measured.

Chlorhexidine: is it still the gold standard?

Background and Methods The author conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the efficacy of antigingivitis and antiplaque products in six-month trials. He searched electronic databases for six-month randomized clinical studies that evaluated both antiplaque and antigingivitis properties of dentifrices or mouthrinses. In addition, the author solicited unpublished studies from manufacturers. Results Seventeen studies support the antiplaque, antigingivitis effects of dentifrices containing 0.30 percent triclosan, 2.0 percent Gantrez copolymer. There was no evidence of efficacy for triclosan products containing either soluble pyrophosphate or zinc citrate. Dentifrices with stannous fluoride had statistically significant, but marginally clinically significant, evidence of an antiplaque effect; however, there was both a statistically and clinically significant antigingivitis effect. The largest body of studies (21 studies) supported the efficacy of mouthrinses with essential oils. A smaller body of studies (seven) supported a strong antiplaque, antigingivitis effect of mouthrinses with 0.12 percent chlorhexidine. Results for mouthrinses with cetylpyridinium chloride varied and depended on the product's formula. Conclusions The studies in this systematic review provide strong evidence of the antiplaque, antigingivitis effects of multiple agents. These results support the use of these agents as part of a typical oral hygiene regimen.

/pdf/a-meta-analysis-of-six-month-studies-of-antiplaque-and-gjrsphm0w0.pdf

A meta-analysis of six-month studies of antiplaque and antigingivitis agents

There has been a vigorous search for many years for chemical agents that could supplement or even supplant patient-dependent mechanical plaque control and thus reduce or prevent oral disease. 5 categories of agents or approaches have been considered: (1) broad spectrum antiseptics, (2) antibiotics aimed at specific bacteria, (3) single or combinations of enzymes that could modify plaque structure or activity, (4) non-enzymatic dispersing or modifying agents and (5) agents that could affect bacterial attachment. The success of these approaches can be evaluated clinically by the use of standard scoring methods for measuring plaque and gingivitis and their safety established by soft tissue and microbiologic examination. Antiseptic agents have received the bulk of the attention over the years. At present, only 2 antiseptics, the bis-biguanide, chlorhexidine gluconate (Peridex) and a combination of phenol related essential oils (Listerine), have developed sufficient supporting data in 6-month (or longer) studies to gain the approval of the Council On Dental Therapeutics of the American Dental Association. On the basis of short-term studies, cetylpyridinium chloride, zinc and copper salts, sanguinarine and octenidine warrant continued study as does stannous fluoride at an appropriate concentration. On the basis of current research, a new generation of more specific antibacterial agents that interfere with attachment to pellicle can be developed. It is hard to predict, however, that they will affect gingivitis, at least until there is more information on what specific organisms should be targeted.

Chemotherapeutic agents for controlling plaque and gingivitis

Background
Dental plaque associated gingivitis is a reversible inflammatory condition caused by accumulation and persistence of microbial biofilms (dental plaque) on the teeth. It is characterised by redness and swelling of the gingivae (gums) and a tendency for the gingivae to bleed easily. In susceptible individuals, gingivitis may lead to periodontitis and loss of the soft tissue and bony support for the tooth. It is thought that chlorhexidine mouthrinse may reduce the build-up of plaque thereby reducing gingivitis.

Objectives
To assess the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for the control of gingivitis and plaque compared to mechanical oral hygiene procedures alone or mechanical oral hygiene procedures plus placebo/control mouthrinse. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without the use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment.

To determine whether the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse is influenced by chlorhexidine concentration, or frequency of rinsing (once/day versus twice/day).

To report and describe any adverse effects associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use from included trials.

Search methods
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 28 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 28 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 28 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 28 September 2016); and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 28 September 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for at least 4 weeks on gingivitis in children and adults. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment. We included trials where participants had gingivitis or periodontitis, where participants were healthy and where some or all participants had medical conditions or special care needs.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened the search results extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where feasible. For continuous outcomes, we used means and standard deviations to obtain the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We combined MDs where studies used the same scale and standardised mean differences (SMDs) where studies used different scales. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. Due to anticipated heterogeneity we used random-effects models for all meta-analyses.

Main results
We included 51 studies that analysed a total of 5345 participants. One study was assessed as being at unclear risk of bias, with the remaining 50 being at high risk of bias, however, this did not affect the quality assessments for gingivitis and plaque as we believe that further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Gingivitis

After 4 to 6 weeks of use, chlorhexidine mouthrinse reduced gingivitis (Gingival Index (GI) 0 to 3 scale) by 0.21 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.31) compared to placebo, control or no mouthrinse (10 trials, 805 participants with mild gingival inflammation (mean score 1 on the GI scale) analysed, high-quality evidence). A similar effect size was found for reducing gingivitis at 6 months. There were insufficient data to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 (moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation).

Plaque

Plaque was measured by different indices and the SMD at 4 to 6 weeks was 1.45 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.90) standard deviations lower in the chlorhexidine group (12 trials, 950 participants analysed, high-quality evidence), indicating a large reduction in plaque. A similar large reduction was found for chlorhexidine mouthrinse use at 6 months.

Extrinsic tooth staining

There was a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 4 to 6 weeks. The SMD was 1.07 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.34) standard deviations higher (eight trials, 415 participants analysed, moderate-quality evidence) in the chlorhexidine mouthrinse group. There was also a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 7 to 12 weeks and 6 months.

Calculus

Results for the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse on calculus formation were inconclusive.

Effect of concentration and frequency of rinsing

There were insufficient data to determine whether there was a difference in effect for either chlorhexidine concentration or frequency of rinsing.

Other adverse effects

The adverse effects most commonly reported in the included studies were taste disturbance/alteration (reported in 11 studies), effects on the oral mucosa including soreness, irritation, mild desquamation and mucosal ulceration/erosions (reported in 13 studies) and a general burning sensation or a burning tongue or both (reported in nine studies).

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence from studies that reported the Loe and Silness Gingival Index of a reduction in gingivitis in individuals with mild gingival inflammation on average (mean score of 1 on the 0 to 3 GI scale) that was not considered to be clinically relevant. There is high-quality evidence of a large reduction in dental plaque with chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for 4 to 6 weeks and 6 months. There is no evidence that one concentration of chlorhexidine rinse is more effective than another. There is insufficient evidence to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 indicating moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation. Rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinse for 4 weeks or longer causes extrinsic tooth staining. In addition, other adverse effects such as calculus build up, transient taste disturbance and effects on the oral mucosa were reported in the included studies.

/pdf/chlorhexidine-mouthrinse-as-an-adjunctive-treatment-for-cfe5n9a1rm.pdf

Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treatment for gingival health.

Regular home care by the patient in addition to professional removal of subgingival plaque is generally very effective in controlling most inflammatory periodontal diseases. When disease does recur, despite frequent recall, it can usually be attributed to lack of sufficient supragingival and subgingival plaque control or to other risk factors that influence host response, such as diabetes or smoking. Causative factors contributing to recurrent disease include deep inaccessible pockets, overhangs, poor crown margins and plaque-retentive calculus. In most cases, simply performing a thorough periodontal debridement under local anesthesia will stop disease progression and result in improvement in the clinical signs and symptoms of active disease. If however, clinical signs of disease activity persist following thorough mechanical therapy, such as increased pocket depths, loss of attachment and bleeding on probing, other pharmacotherapeutic therapies should be considered. Augmenting scaling and root planing or maintenance visits with adjunctive chemotherapeutic agents for controlling plaque and gingivitis could be as simple as placing the patient on an antimicrobial mouthrinse and/or toothpaste with agents such as fluorides, chlorhexidine or triclosan, to name a few. Since supragingival plaque reappears within hours or days after its removal, it is important that patients have access to effective alternative chemotherapeutic products that could help them achieve adequate supragingival plaque control. Recent studies, for example, have documented the positive effect of triclosan toothpaste on the long-term maintenance of both gingivitis and periodontitis patients. Daily irrigation with a powered irrigation device, with or without an antimicrobial agent, is also useful for decreasing the inflammation associated with gingivitis and periodontitis. Clinically significant changes in probing depths and attachment levels are not usually expected with irrigation alone. Recent reports, however, would indicate that, when daily irrigation with water was added to a regular oral hygiene home regimen, a significant reduction in probing depth, bleeding on probing and Gingival Index was observed. A significant reduction in cytokine levels (interleukin-1beta and prostaglandin E2, which are associated with destructive changes in inflamed tissues and bone resorption also occurs. If patient-applied antimicrobial therapy is insufficient in preventing, arresting, or reversing the disease progression, then professionally applied antimicrobial agents should be considered including sustained local drug delivery products. Other, more broadly based pharmacotherapeutic agents may be indicated for multiple failing sites. Such agents would include systemic antibiotics or host modulating drugs used in conjunction with periodontal debridement. More aggressive types of juvenile periodontitis or severe rapidly advancing adult periodontitis usually require a combination of surgical intervention in conjunction with systemic antibiotics and generally are not controlled with nonsurgical anti-infective therapy alone. It should be noted, however, that, to date, no home care products or devices currently available can completely control or eliminate the pathogenic plaques associated with periodontal diseases for extended periods of time. Daily home care and frequent recall are still paramount for long-term success. Nonsurgical therapy remains the cornerstone of periodontal treatment. Attention to detail, patient compliance and proper selection of adjunctive antimicrobial agents for sustained plaque control are important elements in achieving successful long-term results. Frequent re-evaluation and careful monitoring allows the practitioner the opportunity to intervene early in the disease state, to reverse or arrest the progression of periodontal disease with meticulous nonsurgical anti-infective therapy.

Nonsurgical periodontal therapy

The effects of a chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse on plaque and gingivitis were studied among 430 adults in a six-month clinical trial. Subjects were divided in two comparable treatment groups matched for age, sex, and initial gingivitis severity. Following a thorough oral prophylaxis, they were instructed to rinse twice a day for 30 seconds with 15 ml of a 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse or a placebo mouthrinse. After three and six months of mouthrinse use, the chlorhexidine group had significantly less gingivitis, gingival bleeding, and plaque accumulation compared to the placebo group. As expected, accumulation of dental calculus and extrinsic dental stain increased in the chlorbexidine group. No significant differences in adverse oral soft tissue effects were observed between the two groups.



Since use of oral antimicrobial agents has been reported to produce tooth and tongue stain, gingivitis examinations were done with and without tooth covers to eliminate the potential for examiner bias. Comparable reductions in the Gingival Index scores and gingival bleeding were obtained when the evaluations were conducted with or without the tooth covers.



It was concluded that a 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse can provide an important adjunct to the prevention and control of gingivitis when used with regular personal oral hygiene procedures and professional care.

M. Rosa

Papers

Six-month study of the effects of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse on gingivitis in adults